From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
To: Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@fb.com>, Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] ipv6: only update __use and lastusetime once per jiffy at most
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:01:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1508072492.2847.5.camel@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171014000924.dcfuqxwlalaigqdq@kafai-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
On Fri, 2017-10-13 at 17:09 -0700, Martin KaFai Lau wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 10:08:07PM +0000, Wei Wang wrote:
> > From: Wei Wang <weiwan@google.com>
> >
> > In order to not dirty the cacheline too often, we try to only update
> > dst->__use and dst->lastusetime at most once per jiffy.
>
>
> > As dst->lastusetime is only used by ipv6 garbage collector, it should
> > be good enough time resolution.
>
> Make sense.
>
> > And __use is only used in ipv6_route_seq_show() to show how many times a
> > dst has been used. And as __use is not atomic_t right now, it does not
> > show the precise number of usage times anyway. So we think it should be
> > OK to only update it at most once per jiffy.
>
> If __use is only bumped HZ number of times per second and we can do ~3Mpps now,
> would __use be way off?
It would, but even nowaday such value could not be trusted, due to the
cuncurrent non atomic operation used to update it.
This:
https://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=150653252930953&w=2
was an attempt to preserve a more meaningful value for '__use', but it
requires an additional cacheline.
I'm fine with either options.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-15 13:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-13 22:08 [PATCH net-next] ipv6: only update __use and lastusetime once per jiffy at most Wei Wang
2017-10-14 0:09 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2017-10-14 0:26 ` Eric Dumazet
2017-10-15 18:19 ` Martin KaFai Lau
2017-10-15 13:01 ` Paolo Abeni [this message]
2017-10-16 20:09 ` David Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1508072492.2847.5.camel@redhat.com \
--to=pabeni@redhat.com \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--cc=edumazet@google.com \
--cc=kafai@fb.com \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=weiwan@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).